F.E.A.R. Heading to the PS3

[블라스]

No, that's the point, it doesn't make a big difference. It's (literally, this is not an exaggeration) like taking your computer resolution from 1024x768 to 1030x780, the difference is so slight that NO ONE can tell the difference. Giving over system resources to a higher resolution that could be used for FSAA, AF, HDR, etc is just stupid, don't expect many games to do this on the ps3, and don't expect any to benefit from it. 1080p PS3 is a big hoax, like most of the system.

I don't get all thia resolution talk

 

[Topdawg]

The Bigger the tv the higher the resolution.
720 would look ugly on a 60inch tv.

 

[Manny Calavera]

yeah you'd love to "explain it" but there is no explination. 1080p is just better as is 32bit.

For someone who can't even spell "explanation", no, there really isn't one. Anything I say, I know from experience, will just be met with idiots posting "lol yeah right go sony lololol". I've already explained as much as I care to, the difference in resolution is absurdly small, to say nothing of the fact that the PS3 outputs this signal via two HDMI outputs, which none of Sony's own HDTVs are capable of accepting or will be capable of accepting in the near future. Hell, even newly released Blu-Ray movies are formatted in 1080i, which is about as un-high def as you could get. The whole thing is a bunch of smoke and mirrors design to confuse stupid people (that's you), just like sony's bull**** about blu-ray or 'the CELL', or going back further, their "emotion engine" hooplah, it's amazing you idiots still fall for this crap.

As for your "as is 32 bit", wrong again dumbass, don't argue tech matters with me when you can't even spell the stuff you're talking about. All so called "32 bit color" is is a 24 bit color channel with an additional 8 bits acting as an alpha channel, with no quality difference what so ever, because there's no difference between them. You fail.

 

[Manny Calavera]

I don't get all thia resolution talk

Which is why you shouldn't worry about it. I mean, look at the type of people who are concerned about 1080p, you don't wanna be like them do you?

 

[블라스]

Which is why you shouldn't worry about it. I mean, look at the type of people who are concerned about 1080p, you don't wanna be like them do you?

You're talking to a guy who played Pac-Man for like an hour the other day, graphics and resolution means nada to me

I just love to play

 

[Mentok]

Xbox 360 cant even do 1080p, better visuals?lol

What a shock... You buy into the 1080p scam

 

[Danalys]

1280 x 720 vs 1920 x 1080
thats 921600 vs 2073600

over double the amount of pixels. make your mind up if that doesn't make a difference or not. now contrast that to the impression DRT gave. and consider i can do the same to any of his points i disagree with whenever i feel like it.

 

[Topdawg]

What a shock... You buy into the 1080p scam

Im buying the ps3, might aswell take full advantage of it.
and 1080p is better than 720p, it all depends on the tv your buying.

 

[Mentok]

The Bigger the tv the higher the resolution.
720 would look ugly on a 60inch tv.

Wrong.

The physical size of the TV has nothing to do with the resolution. Hence the reason so many people have plasma and lcd displays that only output SD.

 

[Topdawg]

Wrong.

The physical size of the TV has nothing to do with the resolution. Hence the reason so many people have plasma and lcd displays that only output SD.

No, but the bigger it is the pixels stretch.

 

[Mentok]

No, but the bigger it is the pixels stretch.

No. It depends entirely on the native resolution of the display panel.

If you want to get picky about it yes, stretching the image does occur (my X360 display currently scales on my display because the native resolution is higher than x768)

Is it noticeable? No.

Is there a noticeable difference between 1080i and 1080p? Depends on two things... The display you output to and the content you are displaying.

 

[Manny Calavera]

The difference between 720p and 1080p is the motion, because you're not using that HD set for still photos. It has a much better temporal resolution (the picture is at 1/60th of a second, not 1/30th x 2). A smooth 720p picture will flicker or have jagged edges on bright horizontal objects, amongst other visual problems. I'm sure using the word "temporal" probably confused you though, so feel free to go back to your flat out wrong "der, which number is bigger guys?" argument.

 

[Danalys]

it'll future proof your content against increasing resolutions more than 720p will even if you have an SD set. it's a fact that it's better. better doesn't always win out tho.

 

[Manny Calavera]

That doesn't make any sense what so ever. Future proof your content against increasing resolutions? How does it future proof anything, it's still a fixed resolution, please just stop posting

 

[Danalys]

they're both progressive manny. they have the same temporal properties. that's an arguement for 1080i vs 720p

 

[Danalys]

oh you don't get the concept of having content at a higher resolution than you can currently display so that when you do get a display that can display that res in the future. much like movie studios have their films mastered at around 4000 lines, so that then can copy from that source in the future.

 

[Topdawg]

720p>>>>>>>>>1080i
1080p>>>>>>>>720p

 

[Manny Calavera]

they're both progressive manny. they have the same temporal properties. that's an arguement for 1080i vs 720p

On paper. The actual sets that are displaying them are just displaying a 1080i signal that is upconverted, to put all lines on screen at once instead of interlacing them, but retains the same 30x2 setup. That's the "smoke and mirrors" part.

oh you don't get the concept of having content at a higher resolution than you can currently display so that when you do get a display that can display that res in the future. much like movie studios have their films mastered at around 4000 lines, so that then can copy from that source in the future.

No, I get the concept just fine, I just don't understand why you think it works here. The games are going to be made, at best, in 1080p only. Nothing is future proof about this, I mean, the entire idea is beyond absurd.

 

[Mentok]

Edito

 

[Manny Calavera]

18080i is better than 720p depending on your display.

I don't think 18080i is around yet

 

[Danalys]

720p>>>>>>>>>1080i
1080p>>>>>>>>720p

top one depends on prefence, and motion properties of the footage.

 

[Danalys]

On paper. The actual sets that are displaying them are just displaying a 1080i signal that is upconverted, to put all lines on screen at once instead of interlacing them, but retains the same 30x2 setup. That's the "smoke and mirrors" part.

really don't know what your talking about do you. that how all progressive resolutions work when using an interlaced video source. the PS3 can actually put out a 1080p source tho. so it's an irrelevent point.

No, I get the concept just fine, I just don't understand why you think it works here. The games are going to be made, at best, in 1080p only. Nothing is future proof about this, I mean, the entire idea is beyond absurd.

refering to mentox's arguement that people don't have 1080p sets yet. they will eventually and the content on the PS3 is future proofed against that.

 

[Mentok]

I don't think 18080i is around yet

It totally is

 

[Zenien]

Zenien, HL2 everything, Portal, Counter strike, and TF2 are all the same game, you can't list them all seperately to make the PS3 seem less like a pile of garbage

Sure I can, they're different games in different universes. They're bundled together for amazing value, but they aren't all "multiplayer modes" of Half Life 2 Deathmatch.

 

[Manny Calavera]

Sure I can, they're different games in different universes. They're bundled together for amazing value, but they aren't all "multiplayer modes" of Half Life 2 Deathmatch.

I didn't say they were, but they're the same game release, you act like there are a ton of first person shooter releases coming, and there aren't. There are like, three, and one or two worth picking up